“What’s at risk of not beingapproved? A lot, because it exceedsthe budget cap,” said ToddHarrison, a defense budget analystat the Center for Strategic andBudgetary Assessments, a Wa-shington think tank. “So far, they[DoD] have not given to Congresswhat they would want to be cut ifthey have to live within the budgetcaps. That creates a high degree ofuncertainty, because you don’tknow what the appropriators mightdo. It’s not looking good for DoDthat they’re going to get anythingclose to what they are requesting.Just about everything in the Navybudget is at some level of risk ofbeing cut this year.”The BCA has created a tensionbetween the so-called “defensehawks” and the “budget hawks,”often the same people, he said.

“There appears to be more Re-publicans than you might expect[who] are actually pretty happywith the Budget Control Act and what it’s done to gov-ernment spending and the deficit,” Harrison said. “Anyeffort to increase defense spending above the budgetcaps is going to have to be paid for by offsetting cutselsewhere or higher revenues. I don’t think you’regoing to get the president and Democrats to agree tooffsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget, and I don’tthink you’re going to get the Republicans to agree totax increases. That’s why it’s a real possibility that wewill be stuck at the budget cap level.”“There’s a lot of opposition to taking those caps off,”Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House ArmedServices seapower and power projection forces subcom-mittee, told Seapower. “At the same time, there are a lotof people in Congress who realize how devastating thosecaps and sequestrations are to the national defense of thiscountry. I am hoping we are able to succeed in gettingthose caps off.

“By and large, this is a good budget if it stands forthe Navy,” Forbes said. “From a programmatic view, wefeel it’s pretty good. It covers most of the programs thatwe’ve been concerned about.”The 2016 Navy Department budget proposalincludes $50.4 billion for operations and maintenance,$46.0 billion for personnel, $44.4 billion for procure-ment, $17.9 billion for research and development and$2.2 billion for infrastructure, representing increases inall five appropriation groups.

Ships

The nine proposed new-construction ships — funded
with $14.3 billion — include two Virginia-class attack
submarines (SSNs) for $3.3 billion, plus $2 billion for
advance procurement; two Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) for $3.2 billion; three littoral
combat ships (LCSs) for $1.4 billion; the first T-AO(X)
new-generation fleet oiler for $674 million; and completion funds of $550 million for the 12th San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship (LPD), for which
$1 billion was enacted in 2015. Also funded are five
Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) 100-class ship-to-shore connectors and service life extensions for four
older LCACs.

A provision of $693 million would allow the Navy
to complete refueling and comprehensive overhaul of
USS George Washington, meaning it can maintain 11
aircraft carriers in service. The Navy requests $2.5 billion for new aircraft carriers (CVNs), including $1.6
billion for the second Gerald R. Ford-class CVN, John
F. Kennedy, and $875 million for advance procurement
of the third, Enterprise.

The new ship totals for the Future Years Defense
Plan, or FYDP, 2016-2020 include John F. Kennedy, one
America-class amphibious assault ship, 10 Virginia-class
SSNs, 10 DDGs, nine LCSs, five new frigates, one LX(R)
amphibious warfare ship, one afloat forward-support
base ship, four T-AO(X) fleet oilers, five fleet ocean tugs

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus testifies before the Senate Appropriations
defense subcommittee on the proposed Navy budget for fiscal 2016 on
Capitol Hill March 4. Mabus said he would “do everything I can to protect shipbuilding” if cuts were necessary in the spending request to bring it within
Budget Control Act of 2011 caps.